FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ULY 18, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1085 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 02-00508 -CR- T- 17-MSS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us ANDRE T. PAIGE, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(J ul y 18 , 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, W IL SO N a nd P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: De fendant-Appellant A ndre Paige a ppeals his con viction after a j ury trial fo r co m m itt ing se ve ra l c ri m es , inc lud ing a idi ng i n m ur de r w iththe int en t t o pr ev en t c om

m uni catio n of

inf orm at ionabout

af ed er al of fe nse to a fe de ra l of

fi ci al ,Bouy

ie was c harg ed with, among other things, participating in r obberie s at a F lorida Holiday Inn 1 and Shoney ’s re staurant in Mar ch 1998. 2 in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 51 2( a)(1 )(C) . No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we
a f f i rm. I. M ot ion t o S up pr es s Pa ige f ir st arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in de ny ing his m oti on t o supp re ss ( 1) pr e- ar

re st s ta te m en ts m ad e in M ar ch200 2; ( 2) pos t- ar re st s ta te m en ts
m ad e in D ec em

be r 2002 ; and ( 3) gr an d j ur y a nd tri al te sti m ony

giv enin 2003 in a
case a gainst Jeffrey

Bouy ie. 1 W e re view a district court’ s denial of a m otion to supp ress under a m ixed standard of review , r eviewing findings of fac t under the clearly err oneous standard
an d r ev ie w ing de nov o th e ap pli catio n of lawto tho se f

ac ts. U nit ed

S ta te s v. G il, 204 F. 3d 1 347, 135 0 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0)
. A nd w e co nstru e the f ac ts i n th e lig ht m ost favor ab le to the pr ev ai lin g party , in thi s c as e the gov er nm en t. U nit ed

S ta te s v. Santa, 236 F.3d 662, 668 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). A
. Pr e- A rr es t S ta te m en ts InMarc h 20 02, D et ec tiv e L oui s G iam pa vol o, w ho w as inv es tig at ing the death of Of

ficer Christopher Horner, interviewe d Paige. Paige argues on appealDetec tive Giampavolo and Paig e g ave dif fer ing te stimony

about how the inter

view took place
. 2 Acc ordingto Detec tive Giampavolo, Paig e agree d to ge t into Detective Giampavolo’s unmarke d car and to g o to the homicide depa rtment offic e beca

use Paig e did not have a

car or a va lid driver’s lic e ns e . Ca

pta in W. J. Mart in w a s at the ho mic ide de pa rtme nt o ff

ic e wh e n D e te c tiv e Gi ampa vo lo arr ive d wi th Pa ig e ; and Ca pta in Mart in te sti fi e d that no thi ng su g g e ste d that Pa ig e wa s und e r a rr e st. Detec tive Giampavolo testified that he told Paige that Paige was not under arr est or in custody and that Pa ig e wa s not hand c uf fe d. De te c tiv e Gi ampa

vo lo did no t gi ve Pa ig e Mir and a wa rn ing s. Whil e int e rv ie wi ngPa ig e in a

n unlo c ke d r oo m w ithtw o o the r office rs pr e se nt, De te c tiv e Gi ampa vo lo e xpla ine d to Pa ig e tha

t Chri sto phe r G ambl e ha d c on fe sse d th at he and Pa ig e we re inv olv e d w ith sever al ar med robbe ries and Of

fice r Horne r’s de ath. Afte r Paig e told Detec tive Giampavolo that he wanted to he ar from Gamble, the police broug ht G amble to Paig e. Gamble told Paige that he had told the police “e very

thing” ; and Paig e admitted that he w as involved with a robber y at a Holiday In nwi thGa mb l e a n d

Bo uyi e. Du ri n g th e i n t e rv i e w , De t ec t i v e G i amp av o l o t o l d P ai ge t h atP ai ge could l e av e ; a

n d Pa ig e w a s a ll o w e d

to u s e th e b athr o o m u

n a c c o mp an ie d
. A f

te r th e inte rview, Detec tive Giampavolo drove Paige to Paige ’s g irlfriend’ s house. But Paig e testified that De tective Giampavolo told h i m t h at Paige “nee ded” to g o to the homicide depa

rtment’s off

ice a nd that Paige did not believe he ha d a choic e whe ther or not to g o. Pa ige tes ti fie d th at he we nt t o th e bathr oo m a c c omp anie d b y De te c tiv e Gi ampa

vo lo. Pa ig e a lso testified that, at the homicide de partment, De tective Giampavolo place d Paige in a small c ell for 10 o r 1 5 m i nu t es an d l o ck edth e d o o r. Inad d i t i o n , ac co rd i n g t o P ai ge, De t ec t i v e G i amp av o l o t o l d P ai ge that Paige would not ha

ve to w orry if Paige cooper ated with the authorities. Paige testified that he ne ve r a sk e d to sp e ak w ithGa mbl e ; but Gam ble s til l c ame to P a ig e ’s int e rv ie w r oo m. P a ig e a lso d e n i e d c o n f e s s i n gt o th e H o l i d ay In nr o b b e r y. 3 that, be ca use he w as not

r ea d hi s M ir an dar igh ts b ef or e thi s in te rv ie w , his state m en ts m ad e dur ing the int er vie wsho uld

be sup pr es se d. 2 T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at the te sti m ony

of D et ec tiv e G iam

pa vol o
an d othe r of

fi ce rs pr es en t duri ng P ai ge ’ s M ar ch200 2 in te rv ie ww as m or e cr ed ibl e than Paige’ s testim ony

about ho w the interviewoccurre d. T he district court concluded th at, under Dete ctive Giam pavolo ’ s version of events, Paige’ s interview
wa s non-custo dial; so no Miranda w arnings were required. T herefor e, the district
co ur t d en ie d P ai ge ’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s s ta te m en ts m ad e dur in g t hi s i nt erv ie w.We acknowle dg e that Paige testified that he did not believe that he could lea ve the inter

view. 3 The district cour

t deter mined that Paige ’s t estimony was less c redible tha

n Detec tive Giampavolo’s testimony ; and “[ c]redibility deter minations are ty

pically the province of t he fact finder bec ause the fac t finder pe rsonally

observe s the testimony

and is thus in a better position than a r eviewingcourt to a ssess the cre dibilit y of witnesses.” United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002). “In other wor ds, we must acc ept the evide nce unle ss it is contra ry to the laws of nature, or 4 “ Even if a person has not been arrested, advice of Miranda rights is required if the re is a re str ai nt o n f

re ed om of m ove m en t of

the de gr ee a sso ci at ed

w itha fo rm al a rr es t. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mu eg ge , 225 F
. 3d 1 267, 127 0 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0) (i nte rn al quo ta tio n om itt ed ). F or asus pe ct to be in cu sto dy , it

m ust be appare nt t h at , “ u n d erth e t o t al i t y o f t h e c i rc u m s t an ce s , are as o n ab l e man i n th e s u s p ec t ’s posit ion would feel a re straint on hi s free dom of m ovem ent fairly

chara cterize d as that degree associated w ith a form al arr est to such extent th at he w ouldnot feel fr ee to le av e. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. P hil lip s, 812 F
. 2d 1 355, 136 0 ( 11th C ir
. 198 7) (i nte rn al quo ta tio n om itt ed ). “ [T ] he r ea sona ble pe rs on f

ro m w hose pe rs pe ct ive

‘ cu sto dy ’ is de fi ne d is ar ea sona ble inn oc en t pe rs on. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Mo y a, 74 F. 3d 11 17, 1119 (11t h Cir. 1996 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de te rm ini ng, und er

the tot al ity

of the ci rc um stanc es , that a

r ea sona ble pe rs on i n P ai ge ’ s po sit ionw oul d no t have f el t that hi s f re ed om of m ove m en t w as r es tr ic te d inasig nif ic an t w ay . D ur ing the int er vie w , P ai ge w as sittin g in a n un loc ke d r oom , w as pe rm itt ed to go t o th e bathroom , and was told, ac cording to Detective G iam pavolo , that he c ouldleave. 3is so incons i s t en t or improbable on its fac e that no re asonable fac tfinder c ould acc ept it.” I d.

(interna l quotation and alteration omit ted). We ac cept the district c ourt’s cr edibility deter minations in this case. 5 An daf t erth e i n t er v i ew , De t ec t i v e G i amp av o l o dro v e P ai g e b ac kt o h i s g i rl fr i en d ’s hous e. Paige w as not in cust ody during hi s interview; and because no custodial i n t erro g at i o n o cc u rr ed , t h e ab s en ce o f a Mi ra n d a w arn i n g d o es n o tre n d erPa i g e’s interview statem ents inadm issib le. B. Po st- A rr es t S ta te m en ts D et ec tiv e G iam

pa vol o arr es te d P ai ge in D ec em be r 2002
. D et ec tiv e Giam pavolo testified that he advised Paige of his Miranda rights when Paige w as
ar re ste d and tha t P ai ge ind ic at ed that he und er sto od h is r igh ts. A lth oughP ai ge te sti fi ed that D et ec tiv e G iam

pa vol o ne ve r re ad

P ai ge his Mi randar igh ts, he now
ac know le dge s th at

“ [i ] t i s po ssi ble that so m e ty pe of w ar nin gs w er e re ad
. ” S til l Pa ige a sse rt s th at , e ve n if the Mi randaw ar

nin g w as giv en , he did

not kno w ing ly
w ai ve his Mi randar igh ts i n sp eakin g to pol ic e be ca use onl y af ool w oul d have gi ve n a st at em en t i n t ha t s it ua ti on . A s w e ha ve dis cu sse d, w e ac ce pt the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c re dib ili ty determ ination s; so th e district court’ s finding that De tective Giam pavolo rea d Paige his Miranda rights when Pa ige was arrested w as not clear e rror. A nd we ar eWe not e that it do e s not ap pe ar t hat Pa ig e is r a isi ngan in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c la im 4 on a pp e a l. 6 unpersuaded byPaige’ s argum ent that his po st-arre st statem ents wer e not given vol unt ar ily

be ca use it w oul d have be enf

ool ishf or him to m ak e tho se state m en ts. C. G rand Jur

y a nd T ri al T es tim ony Whil e re pr es en te d by

his r et ai ne d law y er , K ar enMe ek s, P ai ge te sti fi ed in Fe br uary 200 3 be fo re the gr an d j ur y in the c ri m ina l c as e ag ai nst Je ff re y Bo uy ie
an d duri ng B ouy ie ’ s M ay 200 3 tr ia l. P ai ge did

not e nte r int o apr of

fe r ag re em en t
o r a p l ea ag re emen tb ef

o re g i v i n g th i s t es t i m o n y. Pa i g e n o w a rg u es th at Me ek s ’s represe ntation of him

during th is tim e w as so deficient that he essentially wa s
unr ep re se nte d and tha t the gov er nm en t vi olate d du e pr oc es s by obt ai nin g incrim inating statem ents from him during hi s testim ony . Paige a lso asserts that 4 the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have sup pr es se d hi s te sti m ony be ca use he w as not

r ea d hi s Mi randar igh ts b ef

or e he te sti fi ed
. W e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in re fu sin g to sup pr es s Pa ige ’ s gr an d j ur

y te sti m ony

a nd t es tim ony

dur ing Bo uy ie ’ s tr ia l. P ai ge doe s no t al le ge th atth e g ov ern m en t co erce d h is tes ti m on y be fo re t he gra nd jury orat t ria l. Se e U nit ed

S ta te s v. T hom

pson , 422 F
. 3d 1 285, 129 5 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) ( expla ini ng that the Fifth Am endm ent prohibi ts use of invo luntary confessions at a crim inalPa ig e di d recei ve Mira nd a wa rn ing s whe n h e wa s a

rr e ste d in De c e mbe r 2 00 2; a

nd duri nghis 5 J anuar y 2003 arr aig nment and F ebrua ry 2003 arr aig nment on a super cedingindictment, Paige was tol d b y the ma g istrate jud g e tha

t he ha d the ri g ht t o r e ma in s ile nt a nd that he did

no t ha ve to t a lk t o anyon e , in c lud ing the g ov e rnme nt. Th e ma g ist rate a lso tol d Pa ig e in Janu ary 20 03 that, i f h e c ho se to m ake sta

te me nts a bo ut h is c a se , h e sh ou ld ass um e th at th os e state me nts wo uld be us e d a g a ins t him
. 7 trial and that the volu ntariness inqu iry focuses “ on whether the defe ndant was
co er ce d by

the gov er

nm en t i nto m ak ing the state m en t” ). I n a ddi tio n, P ai ge f ai ls t o ci te to autho ri ty

statin g th at

aw itn es s be fo re agr an d j ur y or a t a tr ia l m ust r ec ei ve Mi randaw ar

nin gs. A lth oughP ai ge a sse rt s th at “ in h ind sig ht[ , he ] w oul d no t 5 ha ve giv ena ny

state m en ts b ec au se the y

w er e not in his be st i nte re st, ” w e ar e not
co nvi nc ed

that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing P ai ge ’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s hi s te sti m ony state m en ts. II. Su fficien cy of Eviden ce A t P ai ge ’ s tr ia l, Ch ri sto phe r G am ble te sti fi ed

that a gr oup, inc lud ing he a nd Pa ige , r obbe d aH oli day

I nn and the n de ci de d to r ob a N at ion sB an k br an ch
. Jus t b e f o r e d a yb r e a k , th e g r o up we n tt o p r e p ar e f o r th e b a n kr o b b e ry a tac e met e ry,
w he re the y

c hange d c lothe s and c onsum ed dr ugs. I nsi de the gr oup’ s c ar a t the
ce m et er y w er e dr ugs, m as ks, glo ve s, a nd g uns use d inpa st r obbe ri es . A t the
ce m et er y , O ff ic er Ch ri sto phe r H or

ne r -- w ho kne wG am

ble f ro m G am ble ’ s pa st crim inal activity

-- approached the group m em bers who w ere then dressed in bl ack8

and wearing glov es and turned a spotli ght on them
. Af ter G am ble told Office r H or ne r that G am

ble w as a t the c em et er

y to vis it his “ aunti e, ” O ff

ic er H or ne r tol d the group th at he w anted to “ run their nam es.” Am em ber of the group, Char les Fowler , a pproached Off

icer H orner fr om

behind andgrabbed him
. Of ficer Horner then called out Gam

ble’ s nam e. A t that poin t, the group -- including Paige --

“ w en t a li ttl e cr az y ” an d he ld O ff ic er H or ne r dow n onhis kne es ; F ow le r the n sh ot Offi cer Ho rn er i n t he ba ckof t he he ad
. Paige ar gues that su fficient evidence w as not presented at trial to convict him of a idi ng and a

be tti ng a m ur de r to p re ve nt the c om

m uni catio n of

inf orm at ion ab out af ed er al of fe nse to a lawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce r or j udge
. H e co nte nds that the governm ent did no t present evidence that Of ficer Horner knew - - w hen he was killed -- that Paige and his co-conspirators had robbed a Holiday Inn and wer e pr ep ar ing to ro b abank. W e re vie wac ha lle nge to the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce de nov o, r es olv ing all rea sonable inferences fr om the evidence in favor of the j ury ’ s verdict. See Un i t ed St at es v . R

u d i s i l l , 1 8 7 F. 3 d1 2 6 0 , 1 2 6 7 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 9 ). “ Th e ju ry’s
ve rd ic t m ust stand unle ss n o tr ie r of

f ac t c oul d have f

ound gui lt be y ond a reasonable doubt.” U nited States v. L y ons, 53 F.3d 1198, 1202 (11th Cir. 1995).In fac t, when Ga mble was a sked during his te stimony why the g roup had trie d to distract Off icer 6 Horne r as F owler a

pproac hed him, Gamble replied that the group’s c ar c ontained drug s and other robber y tools, such as guns, and that “it would have been ove r with for a ll of us.” 9 U nde r 18 U
. S. C. § 15 12( a) (1 )( C) , the gov er nm en t m ust e sta bli sh b ey ond a
re as ona ble doubt ( 1) the de fe ndant k ill ed or a tte m pte d to kil l so m eo ne ; ( 2) w ith the intent; (3) to prevent his victim from reporting a feder al crim e to a fe deral of fi ci al
. H er e, a cc or din g to G am ble ’ s te sti m ony , O ff

ic er H or ne r fo und the gr oup dr es se d inbla ck , w eari ng g lov es , a nd p re pari ng t o c om m it a bank r obbe ry . T he gr oup’ s c ar

c ont ai ne d m as ks a s w el l a s guns u se d inthe gr oup’ s r obbe ri es . A nd j ust before the group sub dued and sh ot Off icer H orner, Of

ficer Horner had stated that he w an te d to r

un a c he ck on e ve ry one in the gr oup. O ff ic er H or ne r al so id en ti fie d o ne of t he m em be rs of t he gro up by nam e. Viewi ng th is ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, a
re as ona ble j ur y c oul d f ind that P ai ge a nd the r es t of the gr oup kil le d H or

ne r to pr ev en t hi m

f ro m r ep ortin g th ei r ro bbe ry

a ct ivi tie s. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. V ea l, 6 153 F. 3d 1 233, 125 1 & n. 26 ( 11th C ir
. 199 8) ( expla ini ng tha t - - in the c ont ex t of 18 U
. S. C. § 15 12( b) (3 ), w hic h pr ohi bit s, a m ong oth er thi ngs, e nga gin g in
m isl ea din g c ondu ct

w iththe int en t t o pr ev en t c om m uni catio n of

inf orm at ionabout
a fe de ra l c ri m e to a

f ed er al of fi ci al - - “ it is s uf

fi ci en t i f the m isl ea din g in fo rm at ion is l ike ly to be tr an sf

er re d to af ed er al a ge nt” a nd n oti ng tha t, about se ct ion10

1512 (a)( 1)(C) , “ other circuits have concluded that po ssibl e or potential
com m unication of inform ation to federal authorities is sufficient”). Paige has offer ed no autho rity

stating th at a conviction un der 18 U. S. C. § 151 2(a)( 1)(C) req ui res kn owl ed ge of t he sp eci fic cri m e co m m it te d o r to be co m

m it te d; an d we affi rm hi s co nv ic ti on un de r se ct io n 1 51 2( a)(1 )(C)
. AFFIRMED.